City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Comp.’s Empirical Analysis
147 F.3d 256 · 1998
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 43 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 213 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Evancho v. Fisher (2005), Joseph Maio (2000)
37 federal appellate · 43 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 213 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the causal connection between the antitrust violation and the harm to the plaintiff and the intent by the defendant to cause that harm, with neither factor alone conferring standing; (2) whether the plaintiff's alleged injury is of the type for which the antitrust laws were intended to provide redress; (3) the directness of the injury, which addresses the concerns that liberal application of standing principles might produce speculative claims; (4) the existence of more direct victims of the alleged antitrust violations; and (5) the potential for duplicative recovery or complex apportionment of damages.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether there is a causal connection between an antitrust violation and harm to the plaintiff and the defendants intended to cause that harm; (2) whether the nature of the plaintiffs alleged injury was of the type the antitrust laws were intended to forestall; (3) the directness or indirectness of the asserted injury; (4) whether the claim rests on some abstract or speculative measure of harm; and (5) the strong interest in keeping the scope of complex antitrust trials within judicially manageable limits, avoiding both duplicative recoveries and the complex apportionment of damages.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[cjourts have an obligation in matters before them to view the complaint as a whole and to base rulings not upon the presence of mere words but, rather, upon the presence of a factual situation which is or is nor justiciable” and”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.